The main legal point established is the court's reliance on medical evidence and expert testimony to determine the cause of death and calculate compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2021 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.93 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Motor Accident Compensation Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai.)

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

A. The Appeal:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Claimants, aggrieved by the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Motor Accident Compensation Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai, dated 11.11.2021 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.93 of 2019 in and by which, the claim filed by the appellants/claimants was partly allowed and a total sum of Rs.51,340/- was awarded as the total compensation.

B. Brief facts of the Case:

2. One Rangasamay, a Mason by profession, who was aged 43 years as of the year 2018, was travelling in a two-wheeler on 31.10.2018 and while so, at about 4:45 P.M., a Hyundai Car bearing Registration No.TN- 12-H-8872 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from behind, on account of which, the said Rangasamy sustained grievous injuries including a fracture in his right lower limb. He was admitted to Thiruvannamalai Government Medical College Hospital and was discharged on his own request on 03.11.2018. It is stated that he got discharged from the Government Hospital, so as to undergo a nonfixational/ external fixation procedure at the native treatment method hospital at Nagari Puthur Hospital in Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, while he was taken to the said hospital on 18.11.2018, he died. Hence, the claimants, being his wife and 3 children filed the above M.C.O.P.No.93 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents including the Insurance Company on the ground of negligence as well as on the ground that the death was not an account of the accident, but an account of coronary artery disease.

C. Findings of the Tribunal:

4. The first claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and one Udaykumar, an eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and Doctor Kamalakannan who conducted the post-mortem was examined as P.W.3. On behalf of the respondents, one Junior Assistant from the RTO Office, Thiruvannamalai was examined as R.W.1, and no documentary evidence let in on behalf of them.

5. The Tribunal thereafter considered the case of the parties and found that the claimants were unable to produce a valid licence for the deceased to ride a two-wheeler and therefore, concluded that the deceased was riding the two-wheeler without a licence and thereby contributed 15% towards negligence and apportioned the negligence as 85% and 15% between the deceased as well as the offending vehicle.

D. Decision of the Tribunal:

6. Thereafter the Tribunal considered the evidence on record, including the Post-mortem report and the final opinion rendered therein, and held that since the deceased died only due to Coronary Artery Disease, the same was not due to the accident. Thereafter, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards extra nourishment of the deceased for the said 18 days; Rs.5,000/- for the Attender charges; Rs.15,000 for the transportation expenses; Rs.5,400/- as loss of income during the treatment period and after calculating a sum of Rs.60,400/-, deducted 15% towards the contributory negligence and ultimately, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.51,340/-, aggrieved by which, the claimants are on appeal before this Court.

E. The Submissions:

7. Heard, Mrs. M. Malar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. Sivakollappan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company.

8. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased did not die due to the accident is erroneous in law, in view of the specific answer given by P.W.3 in his evidence that the death could